WASHINGTON, June 20, 2008
House OKs Warrantless Wiretapping Bill
Senate Is Also Expected To Approve Measure Providing Protection For Telecoms
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive Domestic Surveillance The debate over the Bush administration's controversial wiretapping program.
The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.
"This bill, though imperfect, protects both," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the intelligence committee.
President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.
The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.
The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.
The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.
The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.
It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.
Quote
Critics of the bill say dismissal is a foregone conclusion.What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Tex."These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She opposes the bill.
Opponents of immunity believe civil lawsuits are the only way the full extent of the wiretapping program will ever be revealed.
Key senators voiced strong opposition to the compromise, although they're unlikely to have the votes to either defeat or filibuster the bill. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.
Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.
"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.
Some civil liberties and privacy groups are also opposing the bill. They object not only to the immunity provision but to what they consider the weakening of the FISA court's oversight of government eavesdropping. For example, the government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it. But if the court objects to how the government is carrying out the wiretap, it could be weeks before those methods are changed or stopped.
"What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance," said Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Opponents also contend the privacy of Americans who communicate with people overseas is not adequately protected. The bill would allow the government to tap the foreigner's calls without court approval, and critics contend that innocent American conversations can be swept up in that.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment bill also would:
The new FISA bill, if it became law, would expire in 2012.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 165 Comments
- Posted by hoseobama
If your going to quote me do it correctly: I said,
"When you can''t get justice in Court or Congress and your government is has a criminal conspiacy with your phone company, better head over to the Gun store... It''s now the only way to protect your rights under the constitution.
hoseobama, have you ever heard of Checks and Balances? It''s what make our Government and laws work so that one brach does not become too powerful. The reason one repulican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania did not vote for it is because he is the top REP. Senete of the judiary commitee, His Argumenent was that:
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.
Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president''s Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.
"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.
No judicial Review = UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Reply to this comment
- President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies'' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote
*********************************
This tells me all I need to know about this bill. If Bush likes it, it is flawed and not in the best interests of America. - Reply to this comment
- United States Constitution
1778-2008
R.I.P.
Posted by dragonwagon
___________________________
__
It was nice knowing freedoms while they lasted....
Posted by me4prezz at 06:56 PM : Jun 21, 2008
I tend to agree with you two on this, but I hope it isn''t so. I have enjoyed being an American, even with the rough things in life here it is far better than most everywhere else on this planet.
"let it be not forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as "Camelot/America". - Reply to this comment
- By the way folks. 105 Good folks in the Democratic Party joined all but one of the Republicans in making this Bill:
"The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to BALANCE PRIVACY RIGHTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT''S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.
SO, get over it far left - the Democrates have voted against you. - Reply to this comment
- impeach_w
Your last post shows what an idiotic, ignorant, hypocritical, jackass you are. Harsh words. So let me prove my statement.
You said, "When you can''t get justice in Court or Congress and your government is has (sic) a criminal conspiacy with your phone company, better head over to the Gun store...".
Bad news on two accounts here, dumbsh|t:
1) Congress is the body of elected people that makes the laws in this country. Hense, it is speaking for the people that elected it, and IS giving the justice that the majority wants.
2) what yo would seem to advocate is a vilent overthrow of the government. And YOU have the NERVE to say YOU can''t get justice!?!
So take you pick. Are you idiotic, ignorant, hypocritical, or just a jackass ? - Reply to this comment
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis also wrote: "The government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by example. To declare that the end justifies the means - to declare that the government may commit crimes - would bring terrible retribution."
When you can''''t get justice in Court or Congress and your government is has a criminal conspiacy with your phone company, better head over to the Gun store... It''s now the only way to protect your rights under the constitution. These Dubious "National security letters" are not at all legal and never were.
Mudrose is a complete idiot. I went thought educating him all day friday. It''s hopeless. - Reply to this comment
- Explain how this 1928 case is not relevant today, Mudrose
Does the State have the power to intercept telephone conversations and use information gathered that way, or are such actions a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the plaintiffs and in favor of the government, holding that wire-tapping was not an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and was not compulsory self-incrimination within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, are judges limited to the ways in which the text was originally understood by the authors? When it comes to the constitutional proection against "unreasonable serach and seizure," does that refer only to the sorts of things that could be searched and seized at the time that the Constitution was written?
In 1934 Congress enacted a statute which made wiretapping unlawful. However, the federal agency charged with enforcing federal law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, made no attempt to enforce it. In 1968, domestic wiretapping was authorized, but only when permitted by a judge and under specific conditions.
Brandeis'' dissent has formed the foundation for civil-libertarian arguments in all cases involving privacy since this decision was handed down.
WIRETAPPING WAS NOT UNLAWFUL UNTIL 1936 - Reply to this comment
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis also wrote: "The government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by example. To declare that the end justifies the means - to declare that the government may commit crimes - would bring terrible retribution."
When you can''''t get justice in Court or Congress and your government is has a criminal conspiacy with your phone company, better head over to the Gun store... It''''s now the only way to protect your rights under the constitution. These Dubious "National security letters" are not at all legal and never were.
Mudrose is a complete idiot. I went thought educating him all day friday. It''s hopeless.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government''s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."
J Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v United States, 277 US 438, 479 (1928). - Reply to this comment
- Nothing illegal about it. They responded to their governments request for assistance in a time of war. Live with it.
Posted by mudrose at 05:04 PM : Jun 20, 2008
_____________________
Do you remember studying American history in school? It was the belief that the monarchy of England was wrong and that to remove our freedoms was wrong and so one person, then a 2nd, then a 3rd and then finally a nation stood up for itself and declared that the way the government was being run was WRONG. A war was fought and our nation born.
It is the responsibility of the people of this nation and our right to question or leaders and stand up for truth and freedoms, even if it means saying to no to a request or demand that you know is wrong. That is what democracy is. If you want to believe everything that a ruling power believes is true, then you want a dictatorship and that is what America has fought so hard against. - Reply to this comment
- Mudrose:
In the words of one of the greatest American patriots who ever lived:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".
Apparently, you deserve neither since you believe that giving up liberty and personal freedom is preferable to living with freedom that so many have fought and died to achieve and maintain. - Reply to this comment
- And you''''re applying what Justice Brandeis said in 1928 to FISA today. And I''''m the idiot. Okay. Time for you to see the doctor.
Posted by mudrose at 03:52 PM : Jun 20, 2008
______________________
We follow a Declaration of Independence, a Bill of Rights and a Constitution that were written far before that time frame. It is on the basis of the past that we guide our future. - Reply to this comment
- United States Constitution
1778-2008
R.I.P.
Posted by dragonwagon
_____________________________
It was nice knowing freedoms while they lasted.... - Reply to this comment
- I hope Nancy Pelosi is tried with treason for (1) Not even allowing the possibility of impeaching a traitor who sites in the Oval Office, (2) allowing this bill to move forward and saying that it is a good thing!
Bush, Cheney and Pelosi should all be tried with treason of the American people and against the Constitution of the United States. UNITED STATES, not Washington DC dictates for the whole! - Reply to this comment
- Try one last time,
*** those government montiors must be blocking.
www.newspeakdictionary.com/
ns-dict.html
Posted by Riptide213 at 11:53 AM : Jun 21, 2008
Your link is good if you copy/paste somewhere first then delete the ''space'' automatically added by CBS forums then re-copy and past to your browser. I went there and added it to my fav''s - Reply to this comment
- Who cares about foreign wire taps....When are we going to See Chris Dodd under oath, out on the Senate floor explaining exactly how sweetheart those sweetheart deals from Countrywide truly were??
Explain to us all how the head of the Senate Banking committee who is preparing a tax payer funded bail out for Countrywide sees nothing wrong with him taking these "sweetheart" deals from the companies being bailed out??
Come on Chris...Under oath. - Reply to this comment
- Unbelievable!!
I guess these left wing pinko, un-Americans Democrats needed this wiretapping smokescreen to hide the fact they''ve been blaming G.W. Bush for this home morgage rip off of America, while Chris Dodd and other Democrat Senators have been caught butt pocket deep in the whole mess.
Where are the Congressional hearings about this rip off of America?? When is Chris Dodd heading to prison??
Countrywide was pumping money into Dodd''s and these other Democrats pockets, and now the head of the Senate Banking Committee is using his position to use tax payer money to pump back into these morgage companies pockets.
All under the guise of "helping home owners."
Can you remember the Chrysler bail out...Yeap, Jimah Carter and no telling how many Democrats in Congress.
Reckon how much up front cash that cost Chrysler?
Are you OsamaObama worshippers truly this asleep at the wheel?? The lights are on, but nobody is home?? - Reply to this comment
- Try one last time,
*** those government montiors must be blocking.
www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html - Reply to this comment
- http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
- Reply to this comment
- Attention all personnel, you are required to log on to below identified site for initial indoctrination.
Failure to do so is a violation of Federal law and compulsory directives.
Warning. We will verify your submission to our expanding authority, so immediate obedient compliance is required.
Log on now and comply now!
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
Government; protecting your freedoms for a safer America.
Thank you and have a nice, controlled day. - Reply to this comment
- Say GOODBYE AMERICA! This is the first step to America becoming what it has fought soooo long against.
Who would have thought that Republicans are the NEW Communists.
Republicans should not be called Neo-Cons They should be called Neo-Commies.
This is a sorry day for America! - Reply to this comment
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
